Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 12 Jun 2008 21:27

I hear US based India Business groups are on an allout drive to shut or quiet any opposing viewpoints to the deal. They even masquerade as sympathisers of a powerful India. Their attention is now focussed on websites too which they previously considered insignificant.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Raju » 12 Jun 2008 22:07

>> MMS is practicing this only within India. He dare not open his mouth abroad. My feel is that all this noise is about his meeting with Bush next month.

politicsparty

Manmohan has after the Karnataka defeat smelt the end of the Sonia Congress party and the end of the Sonia Dynasty.

Manmohan has thus begun Planning for his new job after the UPA Government is thrown out in May 2009 in the Lok Sabha Elections.

RESERVE BANK

Manmohan is upgrading the Reserve Bank Governor to a Cabinet Minister Rank.

Manmohan has got a formal List of Three Nominees shortlisted to be made the Governor of the Reserve Bank.

The Three Nominees are: Subba Rao Finance Secretary. Adarsh Kishore. Montek Singh Ahluwalia.

Manmohan wants to install Montek Singh Ahluwalia as the Reserve Bank Governor with the New Status of Cabinet Rank by this Year End.

Thus when the Congress Government is thrown out Next Year, Ishar’s husband, Montek will continue to be the Reserve Bank Governor.

TAILPIECE

Montek as Reserve Bank Governor will LOBBY with the Americans to make Manmohan Singh the WORLD BANK President in May 2009.

Thus When Manmohan succeeds in defeating the Congress led UPA Government and destroying the Sonia Dynasty in the 2009 Lok Sabha Polls he will also succeed in making his current Boss Sonia unemployed, while he cheerfully takes up his Next Job as the Boss of the World Bank.

FINISHLINE

Sonia is not the First Boss that Manmohan has unemployed.
Chandrasekhar, P.V.Narasimha Rao. Sitaram Kesri, Deve Gowda, I.K.Gujral and their Ghosts must be smiling at Manmohan’s Newest Victim:
Would Be Ex-Chairman of the UPA Sonia Gandhi!

joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby joshvajohn » 12 Jun 2008 22:35

It is problem for Manmohan Singh at the end of the day without making any decision regarding the Nuclear issue. I think next Government being another minority we will be going no where in any decisions. Particularly in relation to Nuclear deal, MMS should try 'do or die' tactics on CPM. They expected MMS to implement already so that they might criticise severely and show off as if they would pull out but they would not have done. CPM itself knows that it does not come back with the same numbers at least will be halved in MPs size. It is going to be a regional parties' show possibly forming a BJP government as well. But MMS should state that the government will have to go ahead with the deal and make some strong decisions such as reversing back Petrol prices to some extent though the heat of it will be very high for the government. For India's sake the deal should go ahead and possibly later some changes can be made with the new person at US.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 482
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Sanatanan » 12 Jun 2008 23:56

Of late there have been a plethora of articles and news reports trying to brainwash the aam aadmi into believing that there is not adequate Nat U in our country to run even our existing PHWRs, leave alone PHWRs and FBRs that are yet to be built.

In fact Mr. K Subrahmanyam "grimly" wrote:
It is time the prime minister asked nuclear scientists to clarify the grim situation on the availability of domestic uranium. They should stress that this was known from the late 1950s and early 1960s and hence Homi Bhabha's focus on the three-stage plan which in the final stage would use thorium, available in plenty in India. While there may have been mistakes in planning, the uranium shortage is not a temporary phenomenon as is claimed by some, but a basic constraint on India's nuclear programme {font decoration, mine}.


On the topic of availability of Nat U resources and a few other related issues, I have put together as below a select list. Each item in the list points to a question in the Parliament and its reply -- pertaining to the Ministry of Atomic Energy, over 500 records are available at present in the publicly accessible databases in the websites of LS and RS. In addition to the topic of the question as per the original document, for purposes of quick reference, I have given in brief, my synopsis of the main thrust of the reply. In some cases I have indicated my comment in italics within curly braces { }. Please follow the link to see the corresponding document in full from the web sites of LS and RS. The list covers years from1995 to 2008 so as to give historical perspective.

Q #1811 Reply in RS on14/12/1995 -- Self Reliance In Nuclear Fuel
Synopsis: India has become self-reliant in the matter of fuel for nuclear power reactors and research reactors while UF6 is to be imported for the 2 reactors at Tarapur (1 & 2).

Q #0511 Reply in RS on 04/12/1998 -- Achievements of NFC
Synopsis: Reasons for the shortfall in production at NFC were mainly the break-down of equipment and sinterability of UO2 powder.
{Inference: Lack of Nat U was not the issue even at this point of time.}

Q #0321 Reply in RS on 02/12/1999 -- Supply of Uranium to Nuclear Power Stations
Synopsis: Categorical answer, "No, Sir" to part [d] of the question seeking to know whether it is because of the shortfall of U that the optimum generation of electricity has not been achieved.

Q #2725 Reply in RS on14/12/2000 -- Nuclear Power Profile Project
Synopsis: Plan of 10,000 MWe by 2000 drawn up in 1984 had to be scaled down subsequently keeping in view the resource constraints in financing the programme.
{Note that lack of fuel has not been cited as the reason for slowing down; on the contrary, lack of money has been indicated as the cause.}

Q #2135 Reply in RS on15/03/2001 -- Requirement Of Uranium For Reactors
Synopsis: 12 PHWRs (then) in operation use Nat U available indigenously - annual requirement in the range of 400 to 450 Te of UO2. Adequate resources of U, are available to meet the requirements of the approved Nuclear Power Generation Programme of the country (reply to part [c] of the question).

Q #1166 Reply in RS on14/03/2002 --Production Of Power From Atomic Energy Power Plants
Synopsis: The implementation of the nuclear power programme (20,000 MWe by the year 2020) would, depend upon the availability of financial resources (reply to part [d] of the question regarding "obstacle if any" in implementing the programme).
{Note that only financial resources has been indicated as obstacle, not lack of Nat U resources}

Q #0891 Reply in RS on 28/11/2002 -- Use Of Advance Fuels {pertinent to nitride and metallic fuels for FBRs}
Synopsis: R & D in advanced fuels {meaning metallic, I think} with higher breeding ratio needs to be pursued to increase the rate of deployment of nuclear power in the country.
{Note no mention of lack of U for FBR; only that higher Breeding Ratio is required for faster growth of energy production.}

Q #2209 Reply in RS on12/12/2002 -- Technology and Fuel For Nuclear Power Generation
Synopsis: Requirements of fuel are met from indigenous mines and supplies from abroad in specific cases {Specific cases meaning LWRs at Tarapur and Kudankulam}

Q #4961 Reply in RS on 08/05/2003 -- Expansion Of Nuclear Facilities
Synopsis: Rapid expansion of nuclear facilities is not affected by the regulations and requirements of NSG. NSG regulations would not affect 2 X 1,000 MWe Russian plants at Koodankulam. There is no obligation for full scope safeguards on our indigenous nuclear programme. India has facility specific safeguards arrangement with IAEA for those nuclear power reactors which have foreign collaboration

Q #1112 Reply in RS on 04/08/2005 -- Enriched U from Non-NSG Countries
Synopsis: 3-stage nuclear power programme is self reliant and is being pursued on the basis of indigenous efforts. There is no possibility of getting enriched U {LEU for Tarapur 1&2} from a non-NSG country. Our fast breeder reactor project development would continue on top priority with indigenous efforts.
{Note: It can be inferred that even as of 2005, GoI had no issues regarding indigenous availability of Nat U. However procurement of LEU from Non-NSG seems to have been investigated even in 2005 and concluded that it would not be feasible. NPT seeks to safeguard the flow of both "source material" (Nat U) and "special fissionable material" (LEU). So, whatever the reasons are for infeasibility of getting LEU from non-NSG countries would be equally applicable to Nat U also because the non-NSG countries are, nevertheless, signatories to the NPT.}

Q #0135 Reply in RS on 01/12/2005 -- Production Of non-conventional Energy Sources
Synopsis: Indigenous U available in the country can support 10,000 MWe. However, with the closed fuel cycle approach needing reprocessing of spent fuel which India has adopted, the potential of electricity generation is enhanced many times. {I have not been able to access the Statement laid on the Table of the House for this starred question.}

Q #2426 Reply in RS on15/12/2005 -- Uranium Deposits
Synopsis: Present nuclear power programme envisages, by the year 2013, 13,000 MWe generation capacity, made up of a mix of PHWRs, LWRs FBRs. While fuel for PHWRs would be supplied from indigenous mines, fuel for LWRs would need to be imported. FBR would run on recycled fuel materials (that is, from spent fuel from reactors in India).
{Note: Even as of Dec 2005, there was no issue regarding availability of Nat U for PHWRs, as alleged by Mr. K Subrahmanyam and others.}

Q #0406 Reply in RS on 23/02/2006 -- Completion Of Nuclear Power Projects
Synopsis: Indigenous U available in the country can support 10,000 MWe. However, with India's closed fuel cycle approach (that is, by reprocessing PHWR spent fuel), potential of electricity generation is enhanced by many times {answer to parts [c] & [d] of the question}.

Q #1783 Reply in RS on 09/03/2006 -- Thorium as Basic Atomic Energy
Synopsis: Question seeks clarification whether Th, which is available in abundance in the country should be the base for the country's nuclear energy programme and not imported nuclear fuels. To this GoI's reply is that the programme has been formulated to achieve long-term energy security through use of abundantly available Indian Th resources. Imported nuclear fuels are expected to serve as additional resource to help in achieving a faster growth in the share of nuclear energy in the near term. Policy of the GoI is to achieve rapid growth in nuclear power generation capacity in India based on full international civilian nuclear cooperation. Efforts to develop appropriate indigenous technologies towards large-scale utilization of Th to continue simultaneously.

Q #2714 Reply in RS on 11/04/2006 -- Availability Of Thorium
Synopsis: 3-stage programme is optimized to make maximum use of indigenous nuclear fuel resources including available U and the large Th resources. Large scale deployment of Th based fuel in the 3rd stage would require growth of the FBR programme (2nd stage) for producing the required U233 in large quantities.

Q #2758 Reply in RS on 11/05/2006 -- Setting up of Atomic Parks {in relation to the civil nuclear deal}
Synopsis: Actual setting up of nuclear power plants through international cooperation is linked to the adjustments of relevant international regimes for enabling full international civilian nuclear cooperation with India, . . . .
Q #3490 Reply in RS on 18/05/2006 -- Supply of Uranium to PHWRs
Synopsis: In response to query whether it is a fact that India's nuclear power programme is heading for a crisis as natural U is in short supply the reply is: U reserves in the country are adequate for PHWR capacity of about 10,000 MWe. But capacity of the 13 PHWRs currently in operation is only 3,040 MWe. Hence there is adequate U for the reactors in operation and also for those under construction. However, operation of the PHWRs at high PLFs and ahead-of-schedule completion of new projects by NPCIL, have resulted in a temporary demand-supply mismatch.

UCIL is now operating 4 mines producing U ore to meet the requirement. New mines have also been planned in 6 more areas of which work at two sites has already been taken up. Adequate reserves have been identified by AMD in different parts of the country. Techno-feasibility of opening new mines in these areas is also being looked into. These measures have been initiated to augment supply of projected requirement of fuel for the Atomic Energy Programme.

Q #5614 Reply in LS on 16/05/2007 -- Uranium Reserves
Synopsis: Gives state-wise availability of U resources and indicates that the total is about 1,07,268 Te of U3O8 equivalent to 91,000 Te of U metal. The reserves are adequate to meet the requirement of about 10,000 MWe by PHWRs for 40 years operation.

Q #0690 Reply in LS on 21/11/2007 -- Shortage Of Fuel In Nuclear Power Units
Synopsis: For the 15 PHWRs in operation there is currently a mismatch in demand and supply of Nat U because of which they are being operated at reduced capacity at present. GoI has taken steps to augment Nat U supply by opening new mines and augmenting processing facilities. Availability of U will improve when mill at Turamdih starts operations.
(Note: No mention of need for import of Nat U even to bridge the current mismatch, let alone for 30,000-40,000 MWe as suggested recently by Mr Kakodkar.}

Q #2803 Reply in LS on 05/12/2007 -- Uranium Produced In The Country
Synopsis: It is not in the public interest to disclose information on the quantity of U produced in the country. UCIL has embarked upon a massive expansion programme.
{Note: In view of earlier replies (e.g. Q 5614 in LS, etc) on U production figures, the present reply seems to indicate a policy change. However, the US President is required by the Hyde Act to provide to the US Congress, amongst a lot of other voyeuristic data about India, an estimate of the amount of U mined and milled in India during the previous year. Of course, it is his business, how he gets this information; the point is, if he is unable to report this data, what will happen to the continuation of the cooperation agreement henceforth?}

Q #2842 Reply in LS on 19.03.2008 -- Nuclear Energy
Synopsis: 10 LWRs, each of about 1,000 MWe and above based on imports are also planned to be taken up for construction in the XI Plan, subject to realization of international cooperation in nuclear energy.
{Note: After the severe financial resource crunch faced by DAE for indigenous development of technology in the 1990s -- for eg. see Qs #2725 and #1166 above -- this is indeed massive purchase via imports.}

Q #2826 Reply in LS on 19.03.2008 -- Mining Of Uranium Deposits In Meghalaya
Synopsis: {A} few NGOs and anti-nuclear activists are opposing uranium mining in Meghalaya.

Q #0533 Reply in LS on 30.04.2008 -- Shortage Of Fuel To Atomic Power Plants
Synopsis: Response to this starred question as to whether the atomic power plants in the country are facing shortage of fuel due to mismatch between demand and supply of natural uranium, was given vide a Statement laid on the Table of the House. I have not been able to access it.

As seen from the data above, at least from 1995 onwards, successive governments have said that adequate Nat U is available in our country for our planned programme. They have not even hinted that it needs to be imported.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby John Snow » 13 Jun 2008 02:00

Pranamamyaham Sanatanan gurum aharnisam 8)

The post by has de mystified the credibility of our AEC/BARC and the powers be at the wheel of fortune (of the nation)

Hope enqyoob saar and Shiv ji also read your excellent research and prove you wrong :wink:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2008 04:27

On the Montek situation, MMS at his best:

The world is not a morality play. The world's political and economic system is a power play and those having greater power use it to their advantage," he told IFS probationers at his residence here.


Sanatanan,

Well done. I suggest we get AK's early statements too.

That there is a need for help is not an issue, India does need it. It is the Hyde Act + THIS 123. It will be to the US's benefit when they reboot and form a more reasonable one.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby sraj » 13 Jun 2008 05:27

Sanatanan wrote:
If I recall correctly, to be allowed to export Nat U to India, India would have had to, by the NPT rules, place all of its nuclear facilities under safeguards -- clearly a no-no.

and
{Note: It can be inferred that even as of 2005, GoI had no issues regarding indigenous availability of Nat U. However procurement of LEU from Non-NSG seems to have been investigated even in 2005 and concluded that it would not be feasible. NPT seeks to safeguard the flow of both "source material" (Nat U) and "special fissionable material" (LEU). So, whatever the reasons are for infeasibility of getting LEU from non-NSG countries would be equally applicable to Nat U also because the non-NSG countries are, nevertheless, signatories to the NPT.}

Sanatanan: Thank you for exposing, on more than one occasion, the Uranium shortage myth being propagated as a reason to sign this deal in double-quick time.

I have just a small, but very important, distinction between NPT and NSG to point out in your above statements:

1. NPT allows Uranium (whether it is LEU or Nat U) to be supplied by NPT signatories to non-NPT signatories, so long as the facility to which it is being supplied in the non-NPT signatory country is covered by facility specific IAEA safeguards. This allows IAEA to achieve its objective of being able to account for every gram of the Uranium supplied going into such facility. India has received LEU for Tarapur-1&2 from the US before 1974 even though India was not a NPT signatory and the US was an NPT signatory.

2. It is only the 45-nation NSG cartel, which decided in 1992, to require "full-scope safeguards" on all nuclear facilities of any country (except, of course, the 5 accepted NWS under NPT who only put 1-2 facilities each, out of the hundreds that they have, under sham, non-permanent safeguards which IAEA does not enforce) as a condition of any nuclear trade by the NSG with that country. This was a transparent attempt, in the immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War (and at a time when Russia was still flat on its back under Yeltsin's 'leadership'), to tighten the screws on countries like India by totally prohibiting any nuclear collaboration unless it signed up to NPT (which could only be as a NNWS) and therefore gave up its nuclear weapons program.

3. The reason LEU is not available from the non-NSG countries is because they lack the enrichment facilities, which are all in a limited number of advanced countries.

4. Nat U, on the other hand, can be legally sourced from any of the 140 plus non-NSG countries (including Namibia, Niger, and Uzbekistan - 3 of the top 5 current producers of Uranium who are not members of the 45-nation NSG cartel) so long as India is willing to place the facility to which this Nat U will be fed (such as one of our indigenous civilian PHWRs) under "facility specific IAEA safeguards" similar to those in effect at Tarapur-1&2, Kudankulam, and Rawatbhata-1&2. The reason GoI does not seem to have looked into the possibility of sourcing Nat U from non-NSG countries before 2006 (based on published reports) seems to be because GoI did not feel the need to import Nat U until 2006 based on their demand supply projections (which may mean someone was not projecting accurately enough).

5. Therefore, anyone who suggests that we need to sign up to all the multilateral legal rigmarole open to differing interpretations inherent in this deal in order to meet our nuclear power generation targets should first demonstrate why

"non-NSG Uranium + 700 MW PHWRs under facility specific IAEA safeguards"

will not achieve that objective.

Please see below:
link
In 1992 the NSG made two major policy decisions to strengthen its nuclear export controls. First, NSG members agreed "[t]o make a full-scope safeguards agreement with the IAEA a condition for the future supply of Trigger List items to any non-nuclear-weapon State."174 The prior guidelines required safeguards for all exports of trigger list items, but permitted NSG members to export safeguarded uranium, for example, to a state that also operated unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.

The NSG goes beyond NPT requirements by controlling dual-use items and requiring full-scope safeguards for exports of EDP items.
Last edited by sraj on 13 Jun 2008 05:35, edited 2 times in total.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby sunilUpa » 13 Jun 2008 05:28

Blimey, and here I am thinking MMS was responsible for shortfall in Uranium production in India as he cut funds for Uranium mining when he was Finance minister first time. So there is no Uranium shortfall at all!

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby satyarthi » 13 Jun 2008 05:44

Sanatanan,

nice compilation!

Getting things through the DDM filter is always risky, given the "maya" introduced by the DDM. To recall, maya has two aspects, one covering up of the reality (AvaraNa-shakti), and the other projecting false forms on top of it (prakShepaNa-shakti). It is always better to refer to the source to get a clearer view.
-------------------------------------
NRao wrote:That there is a need for help is not an issue, India does need it. It is the Hyde Act + THIS 123. It will be to the US's benefit when they reboot and form a more reasonable one.

Do you think a renegotiated version will be worse for India than the current Hyde+123? I think you may actually be saying that renegotiated one will be good for India, and by becoming acceptable to India, will end up being good for USA too. Just confirming.

---------------------------------------
SanjayM:

Hydrogen has only one electron. So metallic hydrogen will be rather interesting, where protons will form a fixed lattice, and all the electrons will be flitting around within the metal. Recall that in a metal, conduction band electrons are shared by the whole metal, and don't remain confined to certain nucleus.

Perhaps Buckyballs can do that. That may be useful for hydrogen storage for say fuel cells.

But I don't see any particular gains as far as fusion is concerned. So, buckyballs can hold 8% by weight of hydrogen. Carbon has atomic weight of 12 and hydrogen is 1. So it means for each carbon atom forming the buckyball, one hydrogen atom was held within the buckyball ( (1/13)*100 =7.7 ~8).

Many hydrides can do much better. Solid Lithium Hydride (LiH) holds 14% hydrogen by weight, with the added advantage that in fusion reaction Li can also participate. Even water (H2O) holds hydrogen 11% by weight.

Remember that for fusion it is not necessary that hydrogen should start in a pure form. The hydrogen can start being part of different kind of molecules too. The heat and pressure required for fusion will ionize everything to plasma anyway, and nucleii and electrons will be flying around free of each other.

The advantage of holding hydrogen in pure form is useful only for fuel-cell kind of applications where hydrogen is essentially oxidised at low temperature to give energy. For fusion applications fuels like LiD (lithium deuteride) which is a solid, are far better since both Li and D participate in the fusion. Remember that hydrogen caged within a buckyball still has one extra carbon atom per hydrogen atom hanging around unnecessarily.
Last edited by satyarthi on 13 Jun 2008 11:40, edited 3 times in total.

paramu
BRFite
Posts: 669
Joined: 20 May 2008 11:38

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby paramu » 13 Jun 2008 06:05

John Snow wrote:
Hope enqyoob saar and Shiv ji also read your excellent research and prove you wrong :wink:


Also the other BLOG also should note this and stop their rants against people here and against this board.
I think BRF should not refer to that blog at all and should try to undermine that blog

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby shiv » 13 Jun 2008 06:12

paramu wrote:
John Snow wrote:
Hope enqyoob saar and Shiv ji also read your excellent research and prove you wrong :wink:


Also the other BLOG also should note this and stop their rants against people here and against this board.
I think BRF should not refer to that blog at all and should try to undermine that blog


Hold your horses sir. I will delete messages on here that seek to start some kind of competition between Sunil's blog and BRF in order to "undermine that blog" No such nonsense will be allowed. Let me make that absolutely clear.

Please let me cross post my own view as admin of BRF who has seen events as admin for over a decade. Cross posted from nuke testing thread:

I don't know why Sunil Sainis's blog should make people on here look over their shoulders and talk to people there. I am reading Sunil's blog every day and I find people on there thinking that they are having some effect on people here. I didn't believe that till I saw these references to Sunils blog

A long time ago I found this game being played between PakDef and BRF and put an end to that. But this time it's worse.

What is worse than one forum actually cross posting discussions on another forum is the general belief that posts "here' are being read and responded to "there" and that people are carrying information from "there" and making posts here any having a good laugh.

For a completely different reason, one BRF poster had linked the blog but the link was deleted first time by someone else and the second time by me under the mistaken impression that BRF can carry on without getting into the "She loves me she loves me not" game with Sunil's blog. It appears that it will not happen that way. Sunil was too deeply involved with BR for people not to continue to value his opinions and his blog is getting filled with people who want to have a rant about BRF. That of course is exactly what happened in the early days of India Forum until Kaushal's persistence and maturity took India forum way beyond being a shoulder for homeless people to cry on.

I believe the best thing is to openly link the blog on here and let people decide for themselves, right out in the open whether information transfer is happening and where information is coming from or going. That would be better than worrying and suspecting that something sinister is happening. Of course derogatory things have been said about Arun, Jagan, ramana and me apart from a few others - but it is better for this to be out in the open than people being paranoid.

Some posters on that blog - paricularly former respected BRF member Alok N and recently booted out troll Saurav Jha seem to dearly want validation that they are being seen and heard on BRF - giving them a back door entry on here. "Yes we see you and we hear you" would be a perfectly honest thing to say under the circumstances. Especially if it is going to make people visiting the blog happy that they have a voice on here and give them a good night's sleep because they are finally back on BRF via the back door. Go on have a rant. We will read all that - but it will be open, and I will still not allow cross posts here. Sorry.

And you can betcha this post of mine will find mention on the blog comments sooner or later. But at least everyone will immediately understand who is taking what discussion from where and to where. Ultimately, I am sure Sunil's blog will grow and mature - but only after the usual bevy of "disgruntled ex BRF" types stop destroying everything there in favor of their constant "DF (Disreputable Forum - aka BRF) mein log kya keh rahen hain?" anxiety.

Llet US not have that anxiety on here please. Let us not waste bandwidth worrying "Sunil Sainis ka blog mein log kya keh rahen hain?" without explicitly saying so. Let people go to Sunil Sainis's blog "Maverick's world" and have a look and satisfy themselves.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby shiv » 13 Jun 2008 06:27

John Snow wrote:
Hope enqyoob saar and Shiv ji also read your excellent research and prove you wrong :wink:


John Snow garu - I cannot speak for enqyoob,

I seem to have been put on some kind of category in which I may want to support the deal or not oppose the deal.

Let me make my stand clear.

My main interest is that BR and BRF should be a place for decent discussion of views. The truth will show itself out, but whatever the truth it must not be sullied by calling people "liars" or "traitors". If you call "X" a liar, I can call you a liar. Note that sanatanan's compilation cannot be refuted because it does not rely on calling anyone a liar who needs to be punished either by whacking their backsides with chappals or any similar comments that have been made against people, by forum members who oppose the deal.

I oppose the language. I have no specific agenda regarding the deal. What will happen will happen. But I will not support people who need to call others liars on the forum in order to try and make their own words sound like the truth. They could be liars or traitors themselves if they need to call someone else a liar or a traitor. That is the extent of my agenda. Decency. Period.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21177
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Rajput/Sikhs/ Marathas all fought alone = Historical Screw U

Postby Prem » 13 Jun 2008 06:37

Shiv Ji,
' Thanks for taking the high road . We are all Indians here so why cant we all get along. I mean if our aim is to serve Bharat then there should be any deep acrimony among men of honors either here or there . Some one ought to put end to this disharmony. We have many Bakasurs( Bakis) to kill and can't affrod to scatter good energy and not take advantage of "diverse" opinion/ weapons.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby shiv » 13 Jun 2008 06:50

A minor point about rhetoric and information exchange.

Every argument can have a counter argument - valid or invalid. And those counters can be worded in a fashion that leads to doubt and misgiving

I would not normally be tempted to argue in that manner unless I felt that a particular argument was being pushed unfairly by making libellous comments about other people. An argument that has the truth has a degree of beauty and there is no need to embellish that beauty by the "make-up and lipstick" of calling opponents of that argument as a liar or a traitor.

"Not only am I beautiful, but my opponent is ugly" is a form of argument that can be torn to shreds. If you are beautiful - your beauty will show by itself, and you do not need to say that they other party is ugly, therefore you are beautiful.

Does anyone get my point?

If I say "Sanatanan is a liar and is being paid by XYZ"? (Sorry Sanatanan I mean nothing personally - I apologize for using your name in an example to show my concern about what has been happening on this forum). I may or may not have anything to rebut what he says - but I use the opportunity to sully him. That must be avoided on BRF.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby rocky » 13 Jun 2008 06:52

The responses to questions in the Parliament as assorted together by Sanatanan point that enough uranium is available in the country, but I think this is taking an accountant's view of matters. The answers don't seem to explicitly confirm that this uranium is in stages of processing, or really available for extraction for immediate or short-term usage (1-2 years) or such.

It only says something like "the Himalayas hold enough frozen water to satisfy India's thirst needs for the next 10 millenia".

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2008 07:36

Rocky-ji,

THAT is THE point.

The accountants situation was created (deliberately) by an economist who is THE politician directing the current deal traffic.

On "really available for extraction for immediate or short-term usage (1-2 years) or such", supposedly the problem came to a head in 2006 (!!!! wonder what happened to the calender years prior to that?). Even then, what has happened in the past 1.5 years? The situation and the lack of transparency lends itself to painting the situation/people involved in a manner that is not PC.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby John Snow » 13 Jun 2008 19:25

Thanks shivji garu,
Fair enough.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Neshant » 13 Jun 2008 21:48

Hardly any nuke reactors are being built in the US which means its not at all cost effective for them. Same could well be true for India. The decomissioning cost of old reactors in the UK is astronomical. Someone is obviously making a ton of money off taxpayers by inflating the bill by a factor of 10 to 100X.

The cost of decommissioning ageing nuclear power sites has risen "rapidly" in the past few years by £12bn to £73bn ($146b) , according to an official report. The National Audit Office (NAO) said costs were rising, even for the most imminent work. It said the industry faced "significant challenges".

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 423
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Prabu » 13 Jun 2008 23:04

At the outset, Congrats for the welcome change in the BR page out look !

N_Rao garu ! Good and consistant view points,

Well done Santhanam ! Excellent Job ! Thanks !

If the facts and data presented by the Govts to the RS / LS points to the systematic , delibarate in efficiency and deliberate mis use of power to reduce mining activities ( and or the Nuke research institutes etc) and starve Nuke plants then BR members can come to their own conclusion !!

As admins (like Ramana garu always does ) if possible encourage and give a conclusive view about the posts done ! If all these points out to the In- efficeincy of GOI or DAE or any Govt body, NO NEED for some admins TO BECOEME SO DEFENSIVE !! after all its not against admins ! As BR members our job is to give our view points and discuss based on facts and try to craeta a CLREAR line of thinking or strategy to be adopted by GOI, in favour of Supreme National interests ! In that process if some high level persons of GOI , or VVIP's are exposed and called as traitor, it is the NATURAL feeling of that BR FITE,(at times Admis too) and the same is being expressed bluntly Just by calling as a TRAITER , he him self CAN NOT become a traitor !!

Atleast, I dont agree with that ! ( Even if i am i am called as Traitor ! by some yard sticks :D )

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby putnanja » 14 Jun 2008 01:14

DAE maps out ‘clusters’ of Fast Breeder Reactors

Hyderabad. June 13 India has set plans to build ‘clusters’ of Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs), which can potentially produce electricity in multiples compared to existing reactors, in the not too distant future.

With the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) expected to produce nuclear power from 2010-11, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is working on setting up a series of FBRs, said its Secretary, Dr Anil Kakodkar.

Unlike the existing Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs), which are the workhorse of the country’s ongoing nuclear power programme and use uranium as fuel, the FBRs burn up ‘plutonium’, and that too in very small quantities, to produce clean electricity.

Plutonium is retrieved from the spent uranium fuel burnt in the PHWRs. In contrast to the large quantity of uranium required to run the PHWRs, FBRs need small amounts of plutonium.

Advantages


The power produced is in multiples, which is the big advantage that FBRs offer. The DAE has already lined up at least four FBRs to be constructed by 2020. The department has set a target of creating an installed capacity of 20,000 MW of nuclear power by then, Dr Kakodkar told Business Line here.

The share of PHWRs by 2020 is expected to be over 10,000 MW. In addition to the existing 4,000 MW installed capacity, at least eight units of the 700-MW PHWRs are in the pipeline. The balance would be made up of over 2,000 MW from the light water reactors at Kudangulam being set up with Russian help, the enriched uranium plants at Tarapur, FBRs etc.

Much of the expansion in the FBR programme would, however, depend on the experience of the PFBR, both in terms of performance and commercial terms, once it is operational in 2010-11, Dr Kakodkar said. DAE scientists have developed a mixed oxide fuel for the PFBR.

Cost of construction


While the costs of construction of the FBR are more or less similar to the PHWR, the DAE strategy would be to construct the former in twins or large clusters which will build economy of scale and save on time, he said.

India had demonstrated its research capability to build FBRs nearly two decades ago. It is among the six nations — the US, the UK, France, Japan and Russia — which have the capability and have built such fast reactors.

With limitations of availability of high grade uranium and opening up of new mines as well as import restrictions, efforts to accelerate the FBR programme is under way at the DAE.


enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby enqyoobOLD » 14 Jun 2008 01:44

Need for the deal is to generate power to keep up economic expansion and bring Indians out of the "power cut" Stone Age.

Hurry for it was because the deal would fall through and have to be revived otherwise, with a COTUS that is expected to be less nuclear-deal-friendly and more NPT-friendly.

Hurry is also because the FDI and the outsourcing-competitiveness may be limited to a window of patience, and both will go away to other countries otherwise. For instance, it takes, say, 4 years to train 100,000 Call Center operators to say: "Hello, I am Mike in Mindanao, how may I direct your call?" but it takes 12 years to bring a nuclear plant on line, so it would be good to start without much delay. Otherwise the investment capital may go elsewhere as well.
(BTW, pls check stock price history of T. Rowe Price New Asia Fund, which invests heavily in India. Indian economy is independent of the sputtering US Economy hey? :(( )

Now let's turn the argument around. So there is no shortage of fuel that requires imports. Great! Then why waste time arguing whether the guarantee of fuel supply will hold despite nuclear testing? Who cares? Why not say, "yada yada yada, so if you aren't happy you can withold fuel supplies. Sure, we'll agree, here's the penalty clause for backing out of fuel supply contracts"

So I don't understand why this issue comes up now. OTOH, note that the US has more than enough petroleum for its need for a long time. But it prefers to import because it's cheaper that way, and it's own fuel supplies benefit as the price increases. Price of crude has gone from around $30 per barrel to $130. Price of uranium has gone from $10 to over $130 in the same time. So keeping the stuff in the ground is good business - unless the ground gets taken over by giant pandas or other interests.

The shortage may be partly in the mining operations, but much more, the issue is
"limitations of availability of high grade uranium" IOW, separation / processing plant capacity, isn't it?

Now the final reason why we don't want to discuss Indian domestic U supplies. The whole point of the US-India deal is SEPARATION of civilian and strategic sectors, so that the civilian can go ahead with reactor construction without waiting for allotment from domestic fuel production.... and the strategic can go ahead without restrictions on fuel supply. Has anyone asked the Rajya Sabha whether there is enough fuel to reach X Gigawatts power generation AND Y bums in the same time?

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby putnanja » 14 Jun 2008 02:38


Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Katare » 14 Jun 2008 03:57

Sanatanan,

In the two years (2005 to 2007) we increased nuclear installed capacity by 50% (from 2770MW to 4120MW) which is stretching the availability of nuclear fuel. In a short period of 5 years (1998-2002) our generation (not installed capacity) was doubled to ~20BKWh by increasing plant load factors which eat up most of the excess nuclear fuel capacity and than on top of it massive addition of installed capacity has created extra demand which can’t be met.

Also govt of india has sanctioned 3-stage program after due-diligence/survey etc on the basis that 10KMW nuclear energy can be produced with indigenous nuclear fuel. So why are you looking for a contrary information/answer from govt in the parliament? It is a known fact and no one disputes it that india can produce enough uranium to support 10KMW energy generation. It is also known and understood that India can’t source uranium for this 3-stage program even after 123 deal since we want to keep it out of IAEA inspection. We’ll have to do it ourselves, we can and we’ll but as usual when you work in an isolated vacuum it takes twice or thrice as much time and resources. A fast growing nation can’t wait for electricity generation, it needs it now and in plenty.

Now the reality is the whole program is stretched out over 50 to 100 years and would run at the slowest of its any component be it mining, finance, environmental or technical issues. Here you must remember that the fuel must be generated at economical cost so as to make it competitive against other source of electricity aka gas, hydro and coal. That constraint is not there for strategic program.

Uranium is one of the most ubiquitous elements which is found in abundance in almost every part of the world including in sea waters. India can produce enough natural uranium to feed entire world's existing uranium demand if economic, technological and environmental constraints are lifted. But we live in a real world where we must perform within given constraints and time frame.

Under existing system we are living in a world of extreme limitation on almost every front -capital, technology, raw material, equipments, access to knowledge and what not. Three stage program is designed to ensure our energy independence, it doesn't get compromised in any way by having access to cheap and abundant foreign uranium deposits since India’s energy demand is way more than what 3-stage .

Recently AEC concluded a conference on uranium mining technologies in India. Kakodkar was shown on TV saying that in India we can’t make uranium mining economically feasible unless we mix it with other mineral mining because of extremely low concentration level and lack of mining technologies for such type of concentration. Gross concentration levels are not significant, commercially exploitable deposits levels are what counts.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby NRao » 14 Jun 2008 05:29

A fast growing nation can’t wait for electricity generation, it needs it now and in plenty.


The question is IF the nuclear side can supply enough to sustain this growth. We are talking about the nuclear contribution going from 3 to some 7-9%. Is that enough? Can not oil + coal sustain that? (For a moment global warming needs to be set aside.)

Then the cost to get from here to there. Is it worth it?

There is no question about the shortage, and thus the need to import. The question is what is the GoI doing to improve this dependency that is self generated? IF it takes 10 years to bring a clean mining operation on-line, then have they started the ops is 2006, or even in 2008?

That the 123 is important is a given, but, I would think that mining ops in India, including environmental issues, should hold some 1000% more importance in view of the situation. GoI should be proving a lot more funds for local events than the 123 stuff.

Then there are issues related to kicking-the-can and the deal of guys like McCain eying making India a Yucca Mountain!! Which is a totally different ball of wax.

But we live in a real world where we must perform within given constraints and time frame.


Dunno Sir. GoI seems to be in a world of its own, until some other country makes noise about some event in India.

No American should be talking about Indian contribution to pollution or global warming, none.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ShauryaT » 14 Jun 2008 06:51

enqyoob wrote:Now the final reason why we don't want to discuss Indian domestic U supplies. The whole point of the US-India deal is SEPARATION of civilian and strategic sectors, so that the civilian can go ahead with reactor construction without waiting for allotment from domestic fuel production.... and the strategic can go ahead without restrictions on fuel supply. Has anyone asked the Rajya Sabha whether there is enough fuel to reach X Gigawatts power generation AND Y bums in the same time?
Is Unkil so dumb as to not read into all this and ask India to sign the FMCT, pronto as agreed to in J18? or else?

Please do calculate, how much fissile will India likely have in such a scenario. Tip: Most likely the lowest among the P6. I know, I know - you do not think that matters - relatively speaking.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby enqyoobOLD » 14 Jun 2008 07:33

Signing the FMCT is not a condition of the 123 agreement. Global Disarmament has always been an Indian aim, and FMCT is an obvious step towards that, so they can put in all sorts of things about "cooperation TOWARDS" peace and harmony and goodwill towards all, and it means nothing.

For that matter, if you see FMCT looming, what about MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime)? I see that as the far greater problem, because I am quite sure that hypersonic cruise missiles pose far greater threat than ICBMs in future. In fact the big danger now is that India is accorded "recognition" as P-6 - and then WHAMMO! The hypersonic missile cutoff treaty (HMCT) comes along and gets signed happily.

So again, if the possibility that US will use FMCT to arm-twist India into a disadvantage is so scary, then I wonder why even discuss the possibility of India conducting ANY business with other nations. Doesn't the 126-plane fighter scam worry you? Imagine putting the backbone of the IAF in the hands of someone who has a clear record of stabbing us in the back every time it suits their terrorist GUBO clients in Pakistan, with "parts cutoff", etc. Why is there so little outcry about that? Desis (incl on BRF) are rushing like kids behind the Pied Piper of Hammelin all grinning about the wonderful shapes of the FA-18 (1982 technology) or F-16 (1972 technology) or Gripen (1960s technology).

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ShauryaT » 14 Jun 2008 07:47

I say FMCT, you say "scared", "global trade", F18.

Why should I respond?

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby John Snow » 14 Jun 2008 07:56

So GOI was not having Plan B for our country to provide electricity requirements, so the price is indeed shocking, ok the J18 /123 has been in the works did we not atleast start in 2005, what if the J18 or 123 fails? No wonder the price to pay is hyde and skin

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Gerard » 14 Jun 2008 08:13

Global Disarmament has always been an Indian aim, and FMCT is an obvious step towards that


FMCT and CTBT are not steps towards disarmament. They are arms control measures.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 14 Jun 2008 08:17

The Quality of Indian uranium ore may not be same as other nations, but the 74-94,000 tonne of economically recoverable Uranium ore already factors that in.

Further economically recoverable Indian Uranium ore has now increased significantly in light of the global increase in energy cost. So the economically recoverable Uranium in India is much higher than 94,000 tonnes that was determined when price of Yellow cake in international mkt was ~$25/kg as against IIRC ~$100/kg now. In the overall energy mix from various energy sources, for Indian economy that is being battered by high petroleum fuel prices, that further lowers the threshold of Uranium ore quality that now becomes viable.

So what gives w.r.t. Shri Anil Kakodkar statement?

What publicly available data is Kakodkar basing his public statement? I would like to know.
Last edited by Chandi Prasaad on 14 Jun 2008 11:56, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby shiv » 14 Jun 2008 08:28

Prabu wrote:If all these points out to the In- efficeincy of GOI or DAE or any Govt body, NO NEED for some admins TO BECOEME SO DEFENSIVE !! after all its not against admins ! As BR members our job is to give our view points and discuss based on facts


You seem to know your job as forum member. I will do my job as admin. I believe I have a responsibility to BR.

If it is necessary to call people idiots and traitors while questioning or decrying their action I am sure it will be possible to find other blogs and forums on the internet to do that. But it will not be allowed on BR as far as I can ensure that Your idea of what is fair may not coincide with mine - but I refuse to allow the idea that personal slurs are needed against people. Sorry if you don't like that - but that is how it is going to be. And admins are going to have to respect this too. I think we have consensus on that.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby sraj » 14 Jun 2008 08:59

Signing the FMCT is not a condition of the 123 agreement.

123 can only come into force once POTUS makes the following determination under Section 104 of Hyde:
SEC. 104. WAIVER AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

(a) IN GENERAL.—If the President makes the determination described in subsection (b), the President may—

(1) exempt a proposed agreement for cooperation with India arranged pursuant to section 123
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153) from the requirement of subsection a.(2) of such section;
..............................
(b) DETERMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT.—The determination referred to in subsection (a) is a determination by the President that the following actions have occurred:
....................................
(4) India is working actively with the United States for the early conclusion of a multilateral treaty on the cessation of the production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Further, Section 104(g)(2)(G) states that POTUS will submit annual reports to Congress on Indian response to US efforts for Regional FMCT (India and Pakistan) and global FMCT:
(2) IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which an agreement for cooperation with India arranged pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153) enters into force, and annually thereafter, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report including
...................................
(G) a detailed description of—

(i) United States efforts to promote national or regional progress by India and Pakistan in disclosing, securing, limiting, and reducing their fissile material stock-piles, including stockpiles for military purposes, pending creation of a worldwide fissile material cut-off regime, including the institution of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty;

(ii) the responses of India and Pakistan to such efforts; and

(iii) assistance that the United States is providing, or would be able to provide, to India and Pakistan to promote the objectives in clause (i), consistent with its obligations under international law and existing agreements;

Of course, if one believes that Hyde is irrelevant to this 123 :roll: , then all of the above is moot.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby sraj » 14 Jun 2008 09:14

For that matter, if you see FMCT looming, what about MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime)? I see that as the far greater problem, because I am quite sure that hypersonic cruise missiles pose far greater threat than ICBMs in future.

In that case, you should have serious objections to the following in J18:
The Prime Minister conveyed that for his part, India would reciprocally agree
............................................................................................
harmonization and adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines.
Especially if this free handover of a potent geo-political Indian card (the ability to legally sell missiles to any country, thereby having the ability to influence the power balance in that area) comes without any reciprocity whatsoever. Section 107 of Hyde:
SEC. 107. MTCR ADHERENT STATUS.

Congress finds that India is not an MTCR adherent for the purposes of section 73 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b).

In plain English: India promises not to sell any missiles to any of the MTCR crowd's neighbors; and the US in turn promises that the full weight of tech denial regimes in the missile arena will still be maintained against India!!!!

Talk about a sweet deal! They don't come much sweeter than this!

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rye » 14 Jun 2008 09:36

What is the logic behind wanting to sell dangerous missiles to other countries? It is one thing if India needs it for its defense. So if the US considers India a violator of MTCR, Putin must plotting how to cheat the americans and not follow american law passed by the american congress -- after all, once americans pass a law in their books, all countries are bound to it, if we go by all the analysis in this thread.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ShauryaT » 14 Jun 2008 09:51

Rye wrote:after all, once americans pass a law in their books, all countries are bound to it, if we go by all the analysis in this thread.
Is that what sraj has said or implied? Let us shoot straight, please.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Rye » 14 Jun 2008 10:07

All I am reading is that once the US passes laws dictating that India does not conform to some standard by the US congress, then India is all out of options in terms of access to various technologies. If what is being said (please feel free to correct if this is the wrong) is that US congress passing laws has implications on India's relationships with other world powers, then does that not mean that the US congress views are relevant outside the US. Either that, or the above analysis is incomplete, as it does not explain how US laws can constrain other countries from doing business with India.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby Sanjay M » 14 Jun 2008 11:33

satyarthi wrote:SanjayM:

Hydrogen has only one electron. So metallic hydrogen will be rather interesting, where protons will form a fixed lattice, and all the electrons will be flitting around within the metal. Recall that in a metal, conduction band electrons are shared by the whole metal, and don't remain confined to certain nucleus.

Perhaps Buckyballs can do that. That may be useful for hydrogen storage for say fuel cells.

But I don't see any particular gains as far as fusion is concerned. So, buckyballs can hold 8% by weight of hydrogen. Carbon has atomic weight of 12 and hydrogen is 1. So it means for each carbon atom forming the buckyball, one hydrogen atom was held within the buckyball ( (1/13)*100 =7.7 ~8).

Many hydrides can do much better. Solid Lithium Hydride (LiH) holds 14% hydrogen by weight, with the added advantage that in fusion reaction Li can also participate. Even water (H2O) holds hydrogen 11% by weight.

Remember that for fusion it is not necessary that hydrogen should start in a pure form. The hydrogen can start being part of different kind of molecules too. The heat and pressure required for fusion will ionize everything to plasma anyway, and nucleii and electrons will be flying around free of each other.

The advantage of holding hydrogen in pure form is useful only for fuel-cell kind of applications where hydrogen is essentially oxidised at low temperature to give energy. For fusion applications fuels like LiD (lithium deuteride) which is a solid, are far better since both Li and D participate in the fusion. Remember that hydrogen caged within a buckyball still has one extra carbon atom per hydrogen atom hanging around unnecessarily.


Thanks much for your response, satyarthi.

I feel that the difference with having the hydrogen inside buckyballs is the geometry. Each buckyball would be able to shape or channel external forces to focus them on squeezing the hydrogen contained inside.

Similarly, muon-catalyzed fusion has achieved the highest energy return so far (~67% of breakeven), more than even the tokamaks, because the muon at 207 times the electron's mass can create a molecular bonding orbital between hydrogens that is 207 times closer. At this short distance, quantum tunneling causes the hydrogens to fuse within half a picosecond.
Even though the short-lived muon lasts only 2.2 microseconds before it expires, it can catalyze a couple of hundred fusions during that time.
So as with the buckyball, it's the close-up interaction that the muon is having with the hydrogens (or more accurately, D-T) which is helping to broker the fusion process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

It is only due to the slow formation time of the muonic D-T molecule (5 nanoseconds) which seems to be limiting the muon from catalyzing more fusions. If only some way could be found to speed up the formation of D-μ-T, then perhaps the process could exceed breakeven. Perhaps the buckyball might help in this regard, by squeezing the hydrogens closely enough that their separation distances are closer to that of the muonic bonding orbital distance, so as to make the formation of that muonic bonding orbital easier.

Image


So based on your quick calculation, there would be 720 hydrogens inside a C60 buckyball (60C*12H/1C=720H). The muon must be able to catalyze at least 600 fusions in order to achieve breakeven, which means we need at least 1200 atoms inside there.
That means we need to go to the next larger size of buckyball, C240, which should be able to contain at least the same 8% H by weight, if not more.
So 240C*12H/1C=2880H which is more than enough for possible achievement of breakeven.

In my mind, if the buckyball's compression can achieve metallic DT having interatomic distances closer to the muonic molecular bonding orbital length, then this would facilitate/accelerate the D-μ-T formation. If this can appreciably lower the 5nanosecond bottleneck in the fusion-catalysis process, then it could be well worth it.

Comments?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby ramana » 14 Jun 2008 12:15

The problem is like this. India interprets proliferation as transferring stuff to other countries and entities. The West especially US interprets proliferation as even India acquiring the stuff and let alone transferring stuff. One needs to look at all these four letter treaties from that view point. In all honesty India agrees to those in principle as non transfer and the other countries see it as India not acquiring or developing that stuff. So talking past each other is involved.


enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

Postby enqyoobOLD » 14 Jun 2008 16:35

As long as India constrains its own actions and stays out of the international community based on what the US Congress decides, and not what international agreements with India decide, the US Congress will keep passing laws that are against India. Even if India acts freely, the US Congress will keep passing laws, but then they shouldn't matter.

Bottom line is that India must act in accordance with international agreements that India signs, not according to what the other countries really want. If they can't get those things into the letter of the agreement, then tough luck.

The 123 agreement is the only international agreement that India has signed on this, that matters. Not "J18" and not "Hyde". So the only danger here is that the NSG may sign an agreement with India, but COTUS may not ratify the 123. Well... where does that leave India? It is US credibility that suffers, so India is better off than the present, in that the NSG nuclear cartel fractures a bit more. Sooner or later, Russia and France will walk out.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests